December 6, 2010

[Five companies] that were claimed to be the largest sources of greenhouse gases — four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority — were sued by eight states, New York City, and three land conservation groups...

Calling the potential impact of the nuisance theory “staggering,” the companies’ petition said that virtually every entity and industry in the world can be found to be partly responsible for some emissions of carbon dioxide, so they are potentially liable to be sued in climate changed nuisance lawsuits.

299 comments:

The death throes of the "Green gambit" to drag Western society down to Third World standards have not been pretty. But they're a necessary evil. These frauds and zealots won't go away on their own. They need to be beaten in the courts just as they've beaten in the laboratory and the rational political arena.

We'll get right back to demonizing carbon-dioxide as a AGW criminal right after the next 30 years of mini-ice age in Europe. Oh, and that sun activity that seems to coincide with AGW timelines, including the 180's some AGW people have started doing given that activity data...never mind that...nothing to see here...keep moving...

Too bad the power companies couldn't shut off their carbon dioxide producing power plants to those eight states and NYC for one day. Then perhaps the residents of those areas would wake up to the type of people they put in positions of power.

The only nuisance is the Criminal Conspiracy to make everyone on earth a serf wholly owned by CARBON KINGS. It is a nuisance because it is destroying our respect for all science used by a Government Agency. That big of a hoax required a conspiracy that is international in scope.Stopping it will require exposing it internationally...now who is good at winning wars against government media conspiracies?

Trooper...I read that Meredith died. He was an amazing football player. I watched him find a way to score evertime his SMU team got the ball back against a superior Georgia Tech at Grant Field in Atlanta. No one could believe their eyes...who was this guy? The party is over for a great man.

Raising utility rates is not going to decrease CO2, people will just pay more. You have to actually cut off the electricity and make people freeze to death or die of heat stroke to really make a differnce.

Yeah, like this:In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

Let's also review the bizarre and idiotic conservative position on global warming.

According to conservatives there is a global conspiracy to fool the entire world into thinking global warming is a problem.

This alleged worldwide conspiracy includes the royal Society of Britain, NASA, all the major US agencies, George W Bush, most governments of the world, most scientists of the world, many leading corporations, insurance companies, especially (who are now paying out increasing claims).

The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC’s latest report in 2007.

Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.

The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang’s 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.

The IPCC’s 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that “any urban-related trend” in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two “coordinating lead authors” for the relevant chapter.

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang’s work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. “Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?” he asked Jones. He continued: “Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?”

Alpha...I always saw you as a hard arguing person with a liberal point of view. But if you are still taken in by Global Warming today, then you are in need of help. There has never been any temperature variations tied to CO2. Whoever say there that is a silly fool. A small trace gas that feeds plants can double every year for 100 years and nothing will happen not caused by the sun. Real science is settled on that. Hoax science demonizing CO2 is gone forever. Income re-distribution has a better argument than outright exposed frauds.

There are facts, and then there is what you believe. What you believe, is not in line with the facts.

So, you have on the side of the there has been no falsification of data, you have:

1. The figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.2. Deleted emails3. NASA admitting East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was better.4. New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.5. East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was manipulated (Professor Jones admitted withholding data about global temperatures).

I get the impression that AlphaLiberal must be very young. Speaking as someone who isn't very young (53), I remember when some of the very same people who are pushing AGW now were predicting an imminent ice age back in the 1970s. It's not at all funny how they recommended the same kinds of actions back then to combat the coming ice age as they do to combat AGW. In other words, they're full of shit to those of us who are paying attention.

The MSM has been swinging back and forth on climate predictions for a long time. <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/msm-inertia-what-we-can-learn-from-120-years-of-climate-catastrophe-reporting/>Here's an article</a> that examines the MSM climate predictions for the last 120 years. They were all over the map.

The Earth's climate is always changing, sometime getting warmer and other times getting cooler. Geologic evidence show this has been going of for millions of years, predating not only the existence of SUVs but of human beings. These variations will continue long after human beings become extinct.

Ignorant? I know that it's cold in the winter, and warmer in the summer. It's always been like that. Some winters are warmer, some are colder. Same thing with summer. Sometimes we have a late fall, and other years there is an early spring.

Here's some interesting data from Cedar Lake, WI. Not too far from my house. It's the dates when the lake is ice free.

If you actually look at the AGW modeling, we are already too late. One of my biggest beefs with the proposed remedy (CO2 reductions) is the complete impracticality of achieving any meaniingful difference (again if you take the AGWers case at face value).

Alpha : Dude, you are a lap behind on this global warming stuff. Were you in Cancun, by the way, at the big shindig where Japan and others said fuck off to the Kyoto protocols? Everybody has had enough.

On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a “trick” and to “hide the decline” in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.

The information that these "scientists" were supplying to the UN was fake.

AL, I do not know where you get your data or if it is accurate. Nor do I know if you've ever said anything honestly. On any subject, on any day, at any time. You are an absolute mistery man/woman. You've got nothing, nothing to indicate that you possess any knowedge of having done anything in your life to indicate how you have gained knowledge. So, I'll just call you a fucking liar.

Just out of curiosity, how do the AGW proponents here view an academic or scientist that previously was on record for claiming CO2 emissions had more to do with climate change than sun activity...but has now admitted he was wrong and that it (the sun) is in fact the greater impact?

If that were to happen, what would AL and his ilk say about said scientist?

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

And guess what? Professor Jones didn't have data from the "best stations" as it was made up.

NASA, NOAA, and East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit do not have accurate temperature data.

Things I observe. If you break it into 10-year blocks, the number of late openings, defined as 4/20 or later, is decreasing. 3 in 1955-1964, 3 in 1965-1974, 4 in 1975-1984, 0 in 1985-1994, 3 in 1995-2004, and 1 since 2005. So 10 in the first 30 years, 4 in the 2nd incomplete 30 years. Early openings, similar trends. Define early opening as 4/5 or earlier: 0 (1955-1964), 3 ('65-'74), 0 ('75-'84), 3 ('85-94), 4 ('95-'04). So yes I do see a pattern of more earlier openings and fewer later ones.

I'm amazed that you had a late open in 1983. There was almost no lake ice here in Madison that year. (This points to horizontal varibility and the hazard of using one point).

AL says "According to conservatives there is a global conspiracy to fool the entire world into thinking global warming is a problem." He further blathers on about the meetings, etc.

I don't call this a conspiracy, nor even fraud (generally, specific research can be fraudulent). It's an overreaction. The financial incentives are so strong there are plenty of people willing to overreact "to be safe". Others are opportunists using this issue to pursue their unrelated goals.

Did we learn nothing from Y2K? Just because a large number of people blather on about something doesn't make it factual. Always remember, if the evidence were anywhere near as definitive as AL claims they wouldn't have to make up evidence to support their position.

ConclusionsThere was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Again, you are just regurgitating fossil fuel industry talking points. you're playing petty political games with a very important topic.

ScottM:

Just out of curiosity, how do the AGW proponents here view an academic or scientist that previously was on record for claiming CO2 emissions had more to do with climate change than sun activity...but has now admitted he was wrong and that it (the sun) is in fact the greater impact?

You have provided no name, no link, no nothing by which to evaluate the statement.

But it wouldn't matter, would it? You arrive at your position on global warming based on partisanship, not science. therefore, you are not susceptible to reason.

"But it wouldn't matter, would it? You arrive at your position on global warming based on partisanship, not science. therefore, you are not susceptible to reason."

I wonder why someone with the closed mind of AL would make such an assertion? Could it be this nutjob thinks he's the reasonable one? How is it possible the nastiest libs around nevertheless manage to maintain such fiction? To themselves of course.

Probably not a coincidence that there are now quite a few books and documentaries based on the premise that mankind is a disease for the planet, and that the planet's best chance of healing would be if mankind disappeared entirely.

You have provided no name, no link, no nothing by which to evaluate the statement.

That's because it's a hypothetical question. I almost typed "purely hypothetical", but I laughingly thought you would be bright enough to figure that out given what I wrote. Regardless, consider it as hypothetical and please answer the question.

ConclusionsThere was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Um, that's great.

But you said: "The theory [global cooling] was tested by the scientific process and abandoned. "

You understand that posting a snippet saying there wasn't consensus on global cooling is not the same as global cooling tested by the scientific process, right?

You keep citing the greenhouse effect in your discussion of global warming...yet keep ignoring that there isn't evidence of warming occurring. See, at a certain point, a theory where everything EXCEPT ACTUAL EVIDENCE backs it up is not all that useful.

AL's vision is the rapture for atheists. There always has to be something threatening our very existence.

This weeks revival was held in the same tent that last week hosted a group who believes when a tree dies outside Jerusalem the antichrist will be born. Due to diminishing attendance next month the two revivals will be combined. Congregants will be instructed that when the tree dies on the road to Jerusalem we will discover massive new surface oil deposits.

ScottM, no thanks. I only have a few more decades in this life and don't want to waste them on the imaginings of global warming deniers who don't even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect is!

Okay. I'll bite. In 2007, climatologist Mike Lockwood wrote what was considered, at the time, to be a watershed article about his team's study which concluded a "quiet" sun had no effect on global warming, removing it from blame as temps continued to rise even while the sun's activity declined. I remember AGW-types holding this up like the golden fleece at the time.

He has since changed his mind and has released another article which details a study just concluded which refutes the previous.

Now...I've given you the name. Find your own links. Please describe the a very concrete example of a climatologist that has changed his mind on the prime mover of global temps and, in fact, is predicting a cooling as we appear to be in something similar to a Maunder Minimum.

You keep citing the greenhouse effect in your discussion of global warming...yet keep ignoring that there isn't evidence of warming occurring.

A) If people don't understand what the greenhouse effect even is then there is no way they have an informed position on global warming.

B) There is ample evidence, mountains of physical evidence supporting the FACT that human-caused global warming is occurring. i.e. if you don't know what that is or if it is real, your opinion carriers ZERO weight.

Thing is, you guys have arrived at your positions by tribal means - your leaders told you what to think and you have dutifully obeyed.

Even thought you don't know what the fuck you are talking about!! (See A)

AlphaLiberal said... ScottM, no thanks. I only have a few more decades in this life and don't want to waste them on the imaginings of global warming deniers who don't even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect is!

Please describe the a very concrete example of a climatologist that has changed his mind on the prime mover of global temps and, in fact, is predicting a cooling as we appear to be in something similar to a Maunder Minimum.

Never answer the phone halfway through writing a sentence without proofing it before submitting.

To restate, please describe what you do with this guy who was come to conclusions that at one time backed up what you say, but has since decided the science is on the side of the opposite of what you say.

The "greenhouse effect" is not in dispute at all. Only the most ignorant global warming denier will claim otherwise.

Keep dreaming.

The "greenhouse effect" makes life itself possible on this planet. Otherwise, we'd be a bit more like Mars. It's also why Venus is so warm.

True

CO2 is a chief gas causing the greenhouse effect. Add more CO2, which we do by millions of tons per year, and warming increases rapidly, especially in comparison to the historical record.

Yes to the first, no to the last. This hypothesis was based on modeling, and they assumed an increasing sensitivity to CO2. Empirical data over the last couple of years seem to have shown just the opposite.

And, note, that the "historical record" is not the least settled. The CRU data is unreproducable, and at least 3 of the other 4 main databases (including the two satellite databases) were calibrated using the CRU data.

There are a couple of problems with the so-called historical record. First, the original source data has been highly massaged - likely for good reasons. But the basis for the massaging is missing, and what was done with the initial source data cannot be adequately explained.

Secondly, there are serious concerns with the selection of data points and how missing data were handled. The Russians seem to take the position that their data has been massively misused. The basic problem there is that the coverage of sites worldwide is very sporadic, over both area and time. It is even worse in the oceans, at least until very recently.

The list goes on, but until the climate scientists can adequately answer these questions, and others, I don't think that we can rationally take AL's position that there is no room for debate and that AGW is proven fact.

AL, so, the lack of warming isn't an issue for you and your concerns about global WARMING. Good to know. I notice that the "mountaIns " of evidence you cite don't tend to contain actual raw temperature data. Funny, huh?

Hearing you complain that people came to conclusions in a tribal manner given that you support a position bolstered by falsified data.

Even Mann said there has been no statistically relevant warming for 15 yrs.

You know where the "greenhouse effect" actually matters? In a fucking greenhouse. From the core of the earth, to the super-heated thermosphere, to the edges of our solar system, there are elemental forces working over geologic time scales that determine the climate on Earth. Wiping your ass with one square of toilet paper, pedaling an Ed Begley-mobile or shutting down the oil industry all have the same net effect. Fucking zilch.

I was much too quick on my previous post. I would respectfully disagree, as others have here, as to how major CO2 is as a greenhouse gas. I think it overambitious to call it a "chief" greenhouse gas on Earth, but it may be so on planets much substantially higher concentrations. But, also keep in mind that Venus is much closer to the Sun, and that it is not clear yet how seismically inactive it is, etc.

But, we still come back to the sensitivity of our climatic temperature to increases in CO2 level. The proponents have claimed an increasing sensitivity. But the skeptics claim a decreasing sensitivity. The latest empirical data seems to support the later. Also, the CO2 concentration has been significantly higher in the (ancient) past, and the planet survived quite handily. It didn't burn up. Of course, Manhattan probably wasn't flooded then, but that was because it likely didn't exist yet.

AL Lynch: Interesting. The first decade average of 493 and the last decade average of 473 tells us what? Probably that normal fluctuations occur in the rate of ice melt. But if you pose this to a believer they tell you that Global Warming is not about climate. It is like the line in North Dallas Forty when the beleaguered lineman claims that every time he calls football a game management tells him it is a business and every time he calls it a business management tells him it is a game.

Alpha...You seem convinced that CO2 traps heat radiated towards outer space. That is not a scientific fact. The narrow wave length where that can be seen is no more than a drop in the ocean. Many tests have proven that.You should be happy...mankind is not close to another genocide after all. Instead you seem pissed off that genocide prevention blackmail has been exposed as a trick by greedy hustlers.Is the free money really that big a deal to you?

Coldists reveal their mystical, shall I say, religious zeal in The War Against Thermometers. [aka TWAT].

You'll appreciate this, Garage.

On our morning show (back when there still was a TWA airline) we did a parody commercial in which TWA teamed up with Lipton to offer TWA Tea on every flight.

The stewardess describing the range of available flavors and the passenger's wife saying she was a "little curious" about the taste were highlights. I'll link some time if I can be bothered to find a server for all that old audio :)

Bruce Hayden, you are wrong on CO2. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's GHG number 2 and the major human-increased GHG, behind water vapor.

Oh, BTW, water vapor increases with global warming because a warmer atmosphere, and oceans, mean more water in the air.

But I am done beating my head against the wall. Really, you guys are not honest debaters in the slightest. You just mimic those great scientists Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh and you reject anything that disagrees with them.

Yes that is right Mad Man, you can't add up the numbers becaue they are dates. And to be precise, you'd have to adjust for leap years but it is raw data which is what I like. Though I admit I was disappointed the data supports Al Gore's crazy beliefs.

I deny that the temperature of the Earth can be controlled by devolving Western Civilization, taxing Americans into penury, and/or building trains to nowhere, asshole.

That's the garbage you call "climate science", right? Reusable shopping bags and mercury light-bulbs will control the future weather? Go do another rain-dance to the Gore Goddess Gaia and then come back and talk to me some more about science.

Pretty much, yes. When you take scientific advice from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and reject same from NASA and NOAA, yeah, you're pretty stupid.

But I come here mainly to learn if there is any hope at all of reasoning with the modern conservative. I've been doing that my entire adult life and you guys have gotten much more rigid and close minded.

At the same time the billionaires have dumped many 100s of millions more into climate disinformation.

So, "dupes" is how I actually regard you on the subject of global warming, in all honesty.

Hey Alpha, I'll take exactly zero natural sciences education from you. Zip, zero, nada. You do understand that shouting "greenhouse" or "closed system" or "feedback loop" doesn't exempt you from actually establishing cause and effect, right?Do you really think the general populace is shit-witted enough to not notice when your "scientific findings" match up 100% with your political/social ambitions from the last half century? Drop the science pose and get to openly calling for the full-on collectivist society you really want. The jig is up.

I know that. It is the innocent people who will suffer as a result that I am concerned with. Future generations, especially.

Surely you should spend time on youth-blogs, rather then Althouse? We're all old and set in our ways here. You really have made ZERO progress in all the years, so why waste another minute on us STOOPID flat-earthers?

Since I've established that AL is wasting his time here trying to change any minds on ANY subject, I can only conclude he enjoys the back and forth insults and name-calling. Whatever gets his rocks off, I guess.

an entire winter of record-shattering cold, let alone a single week, might be a meaningless blip in the overall scheme of long-term climate trends.

From the 1994 article. The Time writer made the unfortunate -- but common -- mistake of conflating weather events with climate, even though the sentence above gets it exactly right. A weather event can be a meaningless blip -- unless there are many many of them, then they acquire meaning.

I also recall the mid-70s work on impending climate cooling. I think it arose mostly because Earth Orbital cycles suggested that perhaps the Earth was/is heading towards a cooler period, and suddenly there were some really cold cold winters (in the US) so scientists (naturally) tried to connect the two observations. That there weren't a lot of followup articles on the subject suggests to me that it was a hypothesis that was tested and found wanting.

"But I come here mainly to learn if there is any hope at all of reasoning with the modern conservative. I've been doing that my entire adult life and you guys have gotten much more rigid and close minded."

I love when the dogmatic fool lectures on "reasoning". The smug "I've been doing that my entire adult life" is icing on the cake. What does it take to convince oneself that inventing a new level of assholedom is a sacrifice on behalf of humanity?

Based on your history here, why would anyone engage you with honest debate?

I had set a policy for myself to not do that exact thing. I upended that today to specifically see what he would think about a noted climatologist going from "the sun isn't the most important" to "the sun is the most important" (paraphrasing obviously). He has completely avoided the challenge and continued to insult people, making sweeping generalizations as he is habitually wont to do.

Madison Man: You might be right about the tested hypothesis in the70s. But in the current debate I believe the hypothesis has been conflated into a religious principle thus giving scientists ample time to back into the proof.

The lack of skepticism of people like AL is alarming. If the solution to global warming was lower taxes and greater wealth for the rich I think the interest would wane. But since the solution can only mean the redistribution of wealth and higher taxes the liberals have a cause they can love.

AGW theory is derived entirely from computer models, and many of those models are decades old.

There is not now or has there ever been a model of the atmosphere that can reliably predict weather over a period of more than a week (and usually considerably less) let alone the global climate. A prime example is the weather we're experiencing right now. Just a week ago the long-term forecast for December called for below normal temperatures along the Pacific coast and above normal temperature for the Southeast. This was based on La Niña influences on offshore surface water temperatures. Now the reality, La Niña is still there, as strong as ever, but the weather pattern is shaping up to be the exact opposite of what was predicted.

There are two hallmarks of a good theory which AGW (hell, GW period anthropogenic or not) theory so far lacks:

1) Predictive Power -- AGW has failed to demonstratively predict anything. The occasional warm summers and cold winters that have been the dominant pattern lately are well within normal decadal fluctuation. One might as well use tarot cards than AGW theory to predict the climate.

2) Falsifiability -- So far AGW believers (and that's what they are) won't admit that any observation mitigates against AGW theory. By their reasoning hot, cold, wet, dry, windy calm, everthing is evidence for their claim. This is nonsense, of course, a theory that explains everything explains nothing.

Essentially AGW believers want us to gamble everything on a signal that is fainter than the noise.

wv: chiliess (used in a sentence) This is the chiliess December 6th I can remember.

I get my science from radio hosts? Are you a fucking idiot? Only dipshit Leftards look to celebrities and washed up politicians for "credibility" when it comes to science.

I'd like to think that next year some time Congress will be able to emulate the UK Judiciary and begin expunging the anti-science Leftist agenda from the national curriculum by taking "An Inconvenient Truth" out of science classes. Then I'll believe the country is on the right path for good.

Fen says...Hey Alpha, will you at least admit that all your AGW data has been corrupted?

They will never do that. They can't.

But, on the side of the there has been no falsification of data, you have:

1. The figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.2. Deleted emails3. NASA suggesting East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was better.4. New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.5. East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was manipulated (Professor Jones admitted withholding data about global temperatures).

Would it not be easier to say that:1) there is growing scientific consensus of an increase in global average temperature2) CO2 could be a cause but the data is conflictual and our ability to test the hypothesis via an experimental design is limited3) In the absence of clear, settled science dramatic policy change that will cause incredible economic upheaval is dangerous at best

And as for the lawsuit:All animals (with the exception of some bacteria) are GUILTY. Even the dead are guilty of releasing CO2.

But if man continues his "interference with climate through deforestation, urban development and pollution," says Emiliani in typical scientific jargon, "we may soon be confronted with either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses."

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

c3 wrote:1) there is growing scientific consensus of an increase in global average temperature2) CO2 could be a cause but the data is conflictual and our ability to test the hypothesis via an experimental design is limited3) In the absence of clear, settled science dramatic policy change that will cause incredible economic upheaval is dangerous at best

Point 2 -- Increases in atmosphere CO2 seem to be more a result of warming than a cause. Al Gore's famous PowerPoint slide shows warm peaks leading CO2 peaks, a truth he conveniently overlooks. The future cannot cause the past.

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.